ACLU Post Series, Part 4: World Net Daily and the Alliance Defense Fund
When I asked for cases demonstrating anti-Christian ACLU activities, most of the links people came up with led to World Net Daily. As far as I am concerned, your credibility goes right out the window whenever you try to support your claims with a WND link because WND has an outrageously blatant history of misinformation in its reporting of supposed infringements on the rights of Christians.
A recent (and very, very funny) example is found in WND's piece, "Silent Night gets repreive." Here's what WND has to say:
- A Wisconsin school that had secularized the lyrics of the beloved Christmas carol "Silent Night" has now agreed to change the words back to the original after receiving countless phone calls and e-mails about the issue.
Liberty Counsel, the law firm working on behalf of parents upset about the secularization of the carol, says it was both public pressure and two letters attorneys sent to the school that prompted the change.
- Dodgeville School District officials say traditional, unaltered carols will also be sung, and that "Cold in the Night" [the secularized version of "Silent Night"] is part of a decades-old Christmas play that students have performed in years past, and is not an attack on the religious nature of the holiday.
...
Students at the school will present "The Little Tree's Christmas Gift," a musical production that tells the story of a family going out to buy a Christmas tree. Other melodies include "Jingle Bells," "We Three Kings," "O Little Town of Bethlehem" and "Chanukah."
...
Messer said parents and students have enjoyed past performances of "The Little Tree's Christmas Gift," and no one has complained before. Traditional carols will be sung by students as well during the program.
World Net Daily probably could have avoided making these "mistakes" if they had actually bothered contacting the school for their story (as ABC did), but I'm sure they saved a lot of time by simply printing a press release for the Liberty Councel.
Okay, on to the Alliance Defense Fund!
The Alliance Defense Fund is a law firm founded to represent an anti-ACLU, pro-Christian agenda. Like World Net Daily, the ADF has a history of tweaking the truth just a teeny tiny bit. A recent example was when, in November 2004, the ADF put out a press release with the headline, “Declaration of Independence banned from classroom.” Over a period of several weeks, the ADF waged a campaign against Stevens Creek Elementary for supposedly banning the teaching of the Declaration of Independence after a teacher read the portion of the Declaration that includes the word "God."
This story was a complete fabrication. Stevens Creek Elementary never banned the Declaration; indeed, it was hanging on the library wall, written in the 5th grade textbook, and taught to every 5th grade class.
On 1/27/05, the ADF issued another press release, in which they rescinded the claim that the Declaration was banned in the school, but maintained that “Mr. Williams [the teacher in question] was prohibited from using the Declaration in his classroom despite having sound academic reasons to do so.”
Again, this was a fabrication. Mr. Williams was expected to use the Declaration in class, and the Declaration was prominently included in the textbook he was required to use. A parent group from the school characterized the ADF’s claims as “ridiculous.”
The real story was that Mr. Williams was using heavily edited and corrupted material to promote an inaccurate version of the history of the
And honestly, folks, these were just the two most recent cases that jumped out at me. Feel free to share your own favorite examples of their wacky antics...there are plenty to go around.
21 Comments:
When summarizing the anti-ACLU position why is it unacceptable to present anti-ACLU organizations? I don't understand that. I originially only presented a news source and was criticized for not presenting the opinion of those who were against the ACLU in this matter. I disagree with WND more than I agree with them. In regards to the particular case in question, I feel that a school has the right to change the words to any song they see fit. So even if the song was written by the school, which seems not to be the case, I would disagree with WND's position and further feel that the Liberty Council was infringing on Consitutional free-speech rights in the same way that the ACLU infringed on LA County's free speech rights by using threat of litagation to prohibit free speech. I didn't want to use WND as a legitamate news source, I wanted to use them as a source of the anti-ACLU position AS YOU REQUESTED. That said, I wouldn't have used them for that if I'd known they changed the facts as you've now shown.
CF
Reading comprehension, CF. It can be your friend.
So you "don't understand," CF? Maybe because you're trying to "understand" a straw man. (Of course, it's your own straw man, so I'm not sure why you would have trouble understanding your own handiwork, but whatever...)
You're welcome to present your anti-ACLU sources. There's nothing "unacceptable" about a source being anti-ACLU, and if you had read my post you would know that the cases presented in this post didn't even deal with anti-ACLU material. Rather, this post layed out the reasons why these sources are fond of lying, and why it is probably unwise to take their word for anything, including the supposed anti-Christian bias of the ACLU.
It is "acceptable" for you to present whatever sources you like, no matter what their biases. If you feel comfortable using proven liars as your sources then by all means continue to do so...I find it delightful.
If someone wants facts, I will use reputable sources that provide facts. If someone complains that those sources don't provide opinions, I'll provide sources that present bias views and opinions. If that same person then says that my credibility is suspect because I presented biased sources of opinions, I'll just raise an eyebrow and said fair enough.
CF
Where were you asked to provide other peoples' anti-ACLU positions, and when was the first time you criticized your own sources (was it before or after they were attacked by others)? Also, do you consider it a compliment to the ACLU that these were the best you could come up with, since you claim to have never considered them good sources at all?
CF: You said, "If someone wants facts, I will use reputable sources that provide facts."
I asked you for facts, and you decided to trust a list of "reputable sources" headed by an organization that reports about abortion doctors supposedly microwaving fetuses and eating them for lunch. (Yes, WND actually ran that story.)
"If someone complains that those sources don't provide opinions, I'll provide sources that present bias views and opinions."
I asked you to suppliment your factual sources with YOUR personal evaluation and opinions (though I did not insist that you do so) because I wanted you to have an opportunity to present YOUR views. The entire point was for you to find factual information, analyze it, and present your arguments (based on the facts) for how the ACLU is violating the rights of Christians. I made it very clear that I wanted YOUR opinions, and that I did not want cut-and-paste editorials from anti-ACLU sources.
"If that same person then says that my credibility is suspect because I presented biased sources of opinions, I'll just raise an eyebrow and said fair enough."
CF, your credibility is not "suspect," it is nonexistent. You lost your credibility around here long ago. This ACLU post series was an opportunity for you to regain some of what you have lost. It is not my fault that you choose to squander it. Indeed, in several cases you did specifically what I suggested you NOT do, and yet now you seem determined to blame your failure on me.
You were given an opportunity to argue your case, and you decided to parrot back a series of easily-disproven falsehoods from some of the most laughable sources available. This is noone's fault but your own.
OK, I have no credibility. Fair enough. Never mind the fact that in the Jingle Bells case I quoted the leader of Toward Tradition, a Jewish group (who noone has even tried to discredit). Never mind the fact that the Washington Times reported that the letter from the ACLU and the ADL did in fact exist. Never mind the fact that this is clearly an example of removing religious songs from a school program that contained secular songs. Is it possible that they were OK with the secular songs? I admit it's possible. I'll even cede the point to you since it can't be disproven. If we assume only religious songs were objectionable then this is still an example of the ACLU being anti-Christian (even if it isn't an example of them being anti-Christmas) and that was half of the challenge. Did I use WND as a source? Yes. And so did you. You linked to them, not the WT, initially. I shouldn't have provided that link because they weren't credible. I admit that. This is your blog and you set your own standards, so it's entirely reasonable for you to link to them or any other biased source. So, I DID provide an example of the ACLU being anti-Christian and you didn't provide any facts or arguments that dispoved the anti-Christian bias shown in this case. I supported my position with evidence and provided my opinion, just as requested. If that is an easily disproven falsehood, I'm curious as to why you didn't disprove it.
For the "Festive Lawn" case, I haven't seen any arguments as to why the ACLU was right to oppose the displays in the lawn, but will cede that no specific anti-Christian bias was shown, since the ACLU tried to squash the free-speech rights of all religions equally, as you rightfully pointed out. Still, the test was whether Christian rights were infringed upone, not whether Christian rights were infringed upon exclusively...so I guess I did that. You gave no evidence that free speech rights of Christians were not infringed upon. If that is an easily disproven falsehood, I'm curious as to why you didn't disprove it.
In the case of the dinky cross, the ACLU infringed upon the right of government to include a Christian symbol into the county seal. You didn't prove that the ACLU didn't attempt to squash the right to free speech in this case or present an argument as to why this isn't a free speech issue. If that is an easily disproven falsehood, I'm curious as to why you didn't disprove it.
You were given an opportunity to show why these aren't examples of the ACLU infringing on Christian free-speech rights. You choose instead not to present any arguments as to why it wasn't an infringement on free speech. If the fact is easily disprovable in a single one of these cases, I invite you to disprove it. I won't hold my breath.
CF
Headline: Zombiedeathkoala attacks her own credibility
In a recent post, Zombiedeathkoala, known agnostic and anti-Citizen F activist, said:
"As far as I am concerned, your credibility goes right out the window whenever you try to support your claims with a WND link because WND has an outrageously blatant history of misinformation in its reporting of supposed infringements on the rights of Christians." This conclusion seems ironic when you notice that, three days prior to this posting, its author used a WND link in order to support her claim regarding an ACLU incident in Rhode Island. On December 12th she said, "The ACLU, along with the Anti-Defamation League, sent a letter to a Rhode Island school board threatening to bring a lawsuit if the school did not remove religious musical selections from a holiday concert." The words "sent a letter" contained a link to "http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35732", an article on the WND website. The latter post later calls the credibility of WND in question by mentioning their use of regular columns written by Jerry Falwell, a leader in the efforts to fight "secularism" in what some have called a "war on Christmas".
Many may not agree that someone's "credibility goes right out the window whenever you try to support your claims" with a site you don't always agree with. But if Zombiedeathkoala believes in her own rhetoric, should might do well to keep her windows closed.
CF
Did she use the WND's 'facts' as you did, to support her own position, or to attack their's? And since you allegedly never trusted the WND and were simply for some reason providing their position and claims as an example of untrustworthy people who happen to agree with you, without believing them yourself or having any intention of letting anyone else believe them, why would it have mattered if you'd "known they changed the facts as you've now shown"? Also, "anti-Citizen F activist"? Isn't that a little pompous and self-obsessed, even for you? Has Author been on your website for over a year?
Aleks,
I sited WND for the same reason ZDK did. I did not use them to support my position, only to provide a basic understanding of what occurred from a biased view. That's why ZDK sited them, too. You asked why it would have mattered if I'd known the misrepresent facts? Because if they misrepresent facts they cannot be relied upon to provide that basic, biased understanding. They are liars. Liars cannot be trusted to provide even the most basic of facts. If you are willing to lie about one thing, I will assume you're willing to lie about anything.
"Also, "anti-Citizen F activist"? Isn't that a little pompous and self-obsessed, even for you?"
Absolutely. It was a joke, meant to point out that I intended the entire post to be humorous and satirical. That's why I wrote it out like a news story, too. I didn't accuse her of anything worse than of what she accused me. Should she be offended? That's up to her. Satire can be offensive, just read any political cartoon. I made my point in a way that was amusing to me and hopefully a little less boring (I've been accused of being boring on multiple occasions) to everyone else. I sited WND for the same reason she did. If she feels that sends my credibility out the window, that is her belief to hold. That doesn't change the fact that she did the same thing. If she disagrees she has plenty of room to show me how different her use of that source was from mine, right?
CF
But you couldn't tell I was using the Onion as a joke. Ok, I believe you're honest on that one but I don't feel responsible.
So she used WND to illustrate the point of view she's denigrating, and you used it to illustrate the point of view you support, and she's got a credibility problem?
It doesn't matter whether I agreed with WND or not, her and I used the source for the same reason. She didn't site them in the opinion portion of her post, she sited them in the factual portion of her post. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's her blog. She wanted people to follow that link so that they understood what she was talking about. She linked for the same reason I did.
CF
She presented them in laying out the case against the ACLU. The only thing wrong with that would be if she chose them when a more credible opponent was available. If there were another wolf on this website and we chose to regard you as the best example of what non-sheep had to offer because you're an easy and ridiculous opponent, that would be cheating. But since you called up your source of news to affirm your own position, you can't make a very good argument that she did so.
At the very least you could "be a man" and explain why I'm responsible for the Hitler ad you falsely claimed MM ran if you're not responsible for WND's behavior, since you used them as a source of facts and I only used MM as a source of videoclip.
ZDK used WND for the same reason I did. Whether she agreed or disagreed with their position is irrelevant. You haven't presented any facts that show that to be untrue.
"explain why I'm responsible for the Hitler ad you falsely claimed MM ran"
You should explain why your responsible for the ad. I didn't say you were. You are the only one whose brought that up as a possibility, so you are certainly more qualified then me to provide that explanation. So why were you responsible for the ad?
CF
1. ==ZDK used WND for the same reason I did. Whether she agreed or disagreed with their position is irrelevant. You haven't presented any facts that show that to be untrue.==
Idiotic. Author used your source of news to lay out the case being made against the ACLU. You used it as a source of facts.
2. =="explain why I'm responsible for the Hitler ad you falsely claimed MM ran"
You should explain why your responsible for the ad. I didn't say you were. You are the only one whose brought that up as a possibility, so you are certainly more qualified then me to provide that explanation. So why were you responsible for the ad?==
Your usual level of integrity. If you weren't trying to hold me accountable for using a source that (you falsely claimed) compared Bush to Hitler, why did you bring that up when you claimed that MM was my "source of news"? I won't even ask you to explain why a reasonably intelligent person would think I was claiming responsibility for "the ad" (which MM didn't even run, you idiot), because that would just be silly and cruel.
Aleks: Thank you for being willing to address CF on this matter.
CF: Seriously, are you really that stupid? Are you really unable to grasp why I used the WND links I did? Have I somehow been unclear about my feelings on WND, the "war" on Christmas, and all those who are dumb enough to believe in either?
The link you cite as supposed "proof" of my hypocricy was used because it was the link YOU USED to refer to the case that YOU SENT ME. I was attempting to give you your fair hearing, by presenting the case and reference that YOU selected, followed by YOUR words on the subject. I see now that my generosity in extending this forum to you was misplaced.
I have, thus far, been assuming that you are sharper than the common spoon, but you appear determined to convince me otherwise. Also, your continued lies are not welcome. I've asked you several times to knock it off. Are you unwilling to stop lying, or unable?
And no, I will not walk you through the evidence of your lies. So don't whimper at me about it. Just knock it the hell off, already.
ZDK,
I know why you used the WND link. You used it for the same reason I did. For some reason everyone wants to assume my intentions (I'm not whining, just stating fact). I don't think there's anything wrong with linking to a site that is written by idiots. If you want to show what idiots are saying, link to idiots. If you think that I'm lying when I say I knew that WND was not a good source of facts, I can't do anything about that. I'm not an idiot and I've never lied here. I'm not asking you to show me where I have lied here, I'm just telling you I haven't. I presented a veiwpoint.
I may have missed the mark with what you wanted to see and I apologize if that has been frustrating, but my only intention was to meet your request. I wasn't trying to irritate you, I promise. I tried to provide the opposing viewpoint. An opinion. I'm sorry if I failed to put up the information you were seeking, but I still think that I provided cases where the ACLU was infringing on Christian rights. You disagree and that's cool, but I thought that's what you wanted. I just wish we could've discussed whether it is an infringement of free speech to use the threat of litigation as a means to censor people. That was my point. We never made it to that discussion because everyone was arguing about sources. That's a bummer. Again, I apologize for not posting what you wanted. I tried. I swear.
CF
1. "You used it as a source of facts."
She used it for the same reason I did. To provide an explanation of the anti-ACLU position.
2. How can I explain why you are responsible for the ad when I never said you were and never believed you were? You never said you were responsible and never believed you were responsible, either, so we are both equally qualified to provide said explanation. Since you brought it up and we are equally qualified, I think it's fair that you provide the explanation. Did I tell you that MM ran that ad (which I think was actually run by MoveOn.org)? I guess that's possible. I may have confused two liberal websites, and I remember arguing with you about the definition of "source of news" but don't remember exactly what we were talking about. That said, I never told you that you were responsible for it. If I'm having a huge lapse in memory and I indeed told you the ad was your fault, or that you were in any way responsible, I owe you an apology. Show me what I said so I can apologize.
CF
When I used a MM link to videoclip from O'Reilly's show, you claimed that MM had run an ad comparing Bush to Hitler* and sarcastically asked if I didn't agree with my "source of news" about that. If you have another explanation that doesn't involve tying me to the ad, say so. If you truly don't remember, I will see if I have the conversation saved .
*MoveOn.org idiotically allowed people to upload ads to their website for a contest without censorship. They were voted on to find the best anti-Bush ad to run, and someone uploaded one of Bush's words over a Nazi rally. They quickly removed it but paid a well deserved price for such stupidity.
I'll cede that I may have tied the wrong liberal website to that ad (I've made mistakes many times before in my life, and I'm sure I'll do it again), but do not cede that I held you responsible for that ad in any way. I used MM as a source. I'd hate to have you hold me responsible for their dishonesty and stupidity.
CF
Reposting because your claim does not address your previous statement as requested. When I used a MM link to videoclip from O'Reilly's show, you claimed that MM had run an ad comparing Bush to Hitler [footnote eliminated because you did choose to address that part] and sarcastically asked if I didn't agree with my "source of news" about that. If you have another explanation that doesn't involve tying me to the ad, say so.
I thought that I had responded to that. I don't believe I held you responsible for that ad. I truly don't remember the exact details of the conversation. If you have it saved, present it so I can apologize to you if I did indeed hold you responsible. Fair enough?
CF
Post a Comment
<< Home